What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was covered by CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The revenue filed an appeal against an order of the first appellate authority which provided relief to the assessee. The tax effect of the disputed additions was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 20 Lacs.

What were the issues?

Whether the revenue's appeal should be dismissed based on the low tax effect as per CBDT circular, despite the Departmental Representative's contention.

ITO vs Smt.Kanchan Arjun Gidde | ITAT Mumbai 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment Year [AY] 2014-15 contests the order of Ld. first appellate authority qua certain relief provided to the assessee. None has appeared for assessee. Therefore, left with no option, we proceed to dispose-off the same on the basis of ITA.No.1594/Mum/2018 Kanchan Arjun Gidde Assessment Year-2014-15 material available on record and after hearing Ld. Departmental Representative [DR], Shri Rajeev K.Gubgotra.

At the outset, it has been noticed that the tax effect of the quantum additions as contested by the revenue is less than prescribed limit of Rs.20 Lacs and the same is covered by recently issued low tax effect Circular No.03/2018 dated 11/07/2018 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes [CBDT]. The Ld. DR, Shri.Rajiv K. Gubgotra, has controverted the same by submitting that necessary instructions / certificate, in this regard, would be required from higher authorities.

We have gone through the circular and find that the tax effect of quantum in dispute is below prescribed limit of Rs.20 Lacs and the assessee stood benefitted by the above circular issued by CBDT wherein the minimum monetary limit for filing the appeals before various appellate authorities have been fixed as under:- S. No. Appeals/ SLPs in Income-tax Monetary Limit (Rs.) matters 1 Before Appellate Tribunal 20.00,000 2 Before High Court 50.00,000 3 Before Supreme Court 1,00.00,000 The aforesaid limits, as per para 13 of the circular applies to pending appeals also. In view of the admitted position, we dismiss the revenue’s appeal.

So far as the contentions raised by Ld. DR is concerned, we find that aforesaid circular does not envisage obtaining of any certificate from any authorities, in any manner. Nevertheless, the revenue is free to move appropriate application to recall this order, if at a later stage, it is ITA.No.1594/Mum/2018 Kanchan Arjun Gidde Assessment Year-2014-15 found that the matter is covered by any exceptions provided in the aforesaid circular or in case the tax effect of the quantum additions as agitated by revenue exceeds the prescribed monetary limit.

The appeal stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th August, 2018. Sd/- Sd/- (Saktijit Dey) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियकसद� / Judicial Member लेखासद� / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांकDated : 10/08/2018 Sr.PS:-Thirumalesh आदेशकी�ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant ��थ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकरआयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. 4. आयकरआयु�/ CIT– concerned िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाईल / Guard File 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai ITA.No.1594/Mum/2018 Kanchan Arjun Gidde Assessment Year-2014-15 Sr. Details Date Initials Designation No. 1 Draft dictation sheets are attached Self- Typed on Sr.PS/PS own computer / Laptop by the Member 2 Draft dictated on Not Applicable Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft Placed before author Not Applicable Sr.PS/PS 4 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 5 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member JM/AM 6 Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 7 Order pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 8 File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the AR 11 Date of Dispatch of order

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), KALYAN vs. SMT.KANCHAN ARJUN GIDDE, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments